Tag Archives: process

HOW WAS THE USER FEEDBACK COLLECTED DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Leave a reply

Collecting user feedback was an integral part of our development process. We wanted to ensure that what we were building was actually useful, usable and addressed real user needs. Getting input and feedback from potential users at various stages of development helped us continually improve the product and build something people truly wanted.

In the early concept phase, before we started any design or development work, we conducted exploratory user interviews and focus groups. We spoke to over 50 potential users from our target demographic to understand their current workflow and pain points. We asked open-ended questions to learn what aspects of their process caused the most frustration and where they saw opportunities for improvement. These qualitative interviews revealed several core needs that we felt our product could address.

After analyzing the data from these formational sessions, we created paper prototypes of potential user flows and interfaces. We then conducted usability testing with these prototypes, having 10 additional users try to complete sample tasks while thinking out loud. As they used the prototypes, we took notes on where they got stuck, what confused them, and what they liked. Their feedback helped validate whether we had identified the right problems to solve and pointed out ways our initial designs could be more intuitive.

With learnings from prototype testing incorporated, we moved into high-fidelity interactive wireframing of core features and workflows. We created clickable InVision prototypes that mimicked real functionality. These digital prototypes allowed for more realistic user testing. Another 20 participants were recruited to interact with the prototype as if it were a real product. We observed them and took detailed notes on frustrations, confusions, suggestions and other feedback. participants also filled out post-task questionnaires rating ease of use and desirability of different features.

The insights from wireframe testing helped surface UX issues early and guided our UI/UX design and development efforts. Key feedback involved structural changes to workflows, simplifying language, and improvements to navigation and information architecture. All issues and suggestions were tracked in a feedback tracker to ensure they were addressed before subsequent rounds of testing.

Once we had an initial functional version, beta testing began. We invited 50 external users who pre-registered interest to access an unlisted beta site and provide feedback over 6 weeks. During this period, we conducted weekly video calls where 2-4 beta testers demonstrated use of the product and sharedcandid thoughts. We took detailed notes during these sessions to capture specific observations, pain points, issues and suggestions for improvement. Beta testers were also given feedback surveys after 1 week and 6 weeks of use to collect quantitative ratings and qualitative comments on different aspects of the experience over time.

Through use of the functional beta product and discussions with these dedicated testers, we gained valuable insights into real-world usage that high-fidelity prototypes could not provide. Feedback centered around performance optimizations, usability improvements, desired additional features and overall satisfaction. All beta tester input was triaged and prioritized to implement critical fixes and enhancements before public launch.

Once the beta period concluded and prioritized changes were implemented, one final round of internal user testing was done. 10 non-technical users explored the updated product and flows without guidance and provided open feedback. This ensured a user experience coherent enough for new users to intuitively understand without support.

With user testing integrated throughout our development process, from paper prototyping to beta testing, we were able to build a product rooted in addressing real user needs uncovered through research. The feedback shaped important design decisions and informed key enhancements at each stage. Launching with feedback from over 200 participants helped ensure a cohesive experience that was intuitive, useful and enjoyable for end users. The iterative process of obtaining input and using it to continually improve helped make user-centered design fundamental to our development methodology.

WHAT ARE SOME COMMON CHALLENGES THAT STUDENTS FACE DURING THE CAPSTONE PROJECT PROCESS

Leave a reply

Time management is one of the biggest struggles that students encounter. Capstone projects require a significant time commitment, usually over the course of a few months. Students must balance their project work with their other course loads, extracurricular activities, jobs, and personal lives. Proper time management is crucial to avoid procrastination and ensure steady progress on the project. It can be difficult for students to realistically estimate how long each task will take and to stick to a schedule as unexpected delays frequently occur.

Scope is another major challenge. It can be challenging for students to define an appropriate scope and scale for their capstone project that is ambitious enough while also being realistically achievable within the given timeframe. If the scope is too narrow, the project may not demonstrate the skills and knowledge intended. But if the scope is too broad, it may become overwhelming and unmanageable. Getting the right scope requires research, planning, and input from advisors to set appropriate and well-defined goals and milestones.

Communication and coordination with other team members is a hurdle for group capstone projects. As students balance individual projects and coursework, it is difficult to find regular times to meet as a team. Misaligned schedules can lead to delays, lack of coordination on tasks, and unclear expectations. Leadership challenges may also emerge if roles and responsibilities are not well-defined. Maintaining effective communication through team meetings, documentation of progress, and management of workflows and deadlines is a constant effort.

Research challenges arise as students wrestle with defining the problem statement and related work appropriately. Students need to thoroughly research the background, solutions, technologies used in similar projects while identifying the limitations and gaps. The vast amount of information available online can introduce the difficulty of sorting through resources and selecting the most relevant and reliable sources. Students also must determine the best research methodology and how to apply their findings to define the goals and approach for the project. The research process requires stronger critical thinking and evaluation skills than standard coursework.

Technical difficulties are common during the implementation of the capstone project. Students often encounter technical hurdles as they apply their theoretical knowledge to a practical project. Selection of the right technologies and tools requires research and consultation with advisors on feasibility. During implementation, students frequently run into issues related to bugs, integration of different components, functionality, and optimization challenges. They must devote time for troubleshooting and seeking external help when facing technical roadblocks. Additional delays result when the selected technologies do not align with the defined scope or time available.

Presentation challenges exist around communicating the project scope, methodology, outcomes, limitations, and future work in a clear manner. Many students struggle with creating organized and polished deliverables that compile the various stages of work into a cohesive final report or presentation. Concisely articulating technical details and fielding questions during the defense can also be daunting. Mastering effective communication and documentation requires practice that students often lack.

Sustaining motivation becomes difficult over the long duration of a capstone project. With competing priorities and setbacks, it is challenging for students to remain consistently engaged and focused on their projects. Periods of lowered motivation can stall progress and induce procrastination. Students need to ensure they schedule time for intrinsic motivation through smaller wins and view their projects as opportunities rather than burdens. Maintaining contact with advisors also helps overcome temporary dips in drive.

Undertaking a capstone project is an intensive endeavor that poses numerous challenges for students related to planning, research, implementation, coordination, and communication. While testing various skills, capstone work pushes students outside their comfort zones. Overcoming these common struggles requires discipline, adaptability, help-seeking, and time management from students which helps strengthen their abilities. Close supervision and realistic goal-setting further assist in navigating capstone project roadblocks.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING A SOLUTION TO KAGGLE FOR EVALUATION

Leave a reply

In order to submit a solution to a Kaggle competition for evaluation, you first need to create an account on the Kaggle website if you do not already have one. After creating your account, you can browse the hundreds of different machine learning competitions hosted on the platform. Each competition will have its own dataset, evaluation metric, and submission guidelines that you should thoroughly review before starting work on a solution.

Some common things you’ll want to understand about the competition include the machine learning problem type (classification, regression, etc.), details on the training and test datasets, how solutions will be scored, and any submission or programming language restrictions. Reviewing this information upfront will help guide your solution development process. You’ll also want to explore the dataset yourself through Kaggle’s online data exploration tools to get a sense of the data characteristics and potential challenges.

Once you’ve selected a competition to participate in, you can download the full training dataset to your local machine to start developing your solution locally. Most competitions provide both training and validation datasets for developing and tuning your models, but your final solution can only use the training data. It’s common to split the training data even further into training and validation subsets for hyperparameter tuning as well.

In terms of developing your actual solution, there are generally no restrictions on the specific machine learning techniques or libraries you use as long as they are within the specified rules. Common approaches include everything from linear and logistic regression to advanced deep learning methods like convolutional neural networks. The choice of algorithm depends on factors like the problem type, data characteristics,your own expertise, and performance on the validation set.

As you experiment with different models, features, hyperparameters, and techniques, you’ll want to routinely evaluate your solution on the validation set to identify the best performing version without overfitting to training data. Tools like validation F1 score, log loss, or root mean squared error can help quantify how well each iteration is generalizing. Once satisfied with your validation results, you’re ready to package your final model into a submission file format.

Kaggle competitions each have their own requirements for the format and contents of submissions that are used to actually evaluate your solution anonymously on the unseen test data. Common submission file types include CSVs with true/predicted labels or probabilities, Python/R predictive functions, and even Docker containers or executable programs for more complex solutions. Your submission package generally needs to include just the code/functions to make predictions on new data without any training components.

To submit your solution, you login to the competition page and use the provided interface to upload your anonymized submission file along with any other required metadata. Kaggle will then run your submission against the unseen test data and return back your official evaluation score within minutes or hours depending on the queue. You are given a limited number of free submissions to iterate, with additional submissions sometimes requiring competition credits that can be purchased.

Following evaluation, Kaggle provides a detailed breakdown of your submission’s performance on the test set to help diagnose errors and identify areas for improvement. You can then download the test data labels to compare your predictions and analyze mistakes. The process then repeats as you refine your solution, submitting new versions to continuously improve your ranking on the public leaderboard. Over time, top performers may analyze other approaches through released kernels, discuss strategies through forums, and collaborate to push the performance ceiling higher.

Some additional tips include starting early to iterate more, profiling submissions to optimize efficiency, exploring sparse solutions for larger datasets, and analyzing solutions from top competitors once released. Maintaining a public GitHub with your final solution is also common for sharing approaches and potentially garnering interest from other Kaggle users or even employers. The Kaggle competition process provides a structured, metric-driven way for machine learning practitioners to benchmark and improve their skills against others on challenging real-world problems.

WHAT ARE SOME POTENTIAL REFORMS BEING DISCUSSED TO IMPROVE THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS

Leave a reply

The higher education accreditation process in the United States is intended to ensure that colleges and universities meet thresholds of quality, but there have been ongoing discussions about ways the system could be reformed or improved. Some of the major reforms being debated include:

Streamlining the accreditation process. The full accreditation process from initial self-study through site visits and decision making can take several years to complete. Many argue this lengthy process is bureaucratic and wastes resources for both the institutions and accreditors. Reforms focus on simplifying documentation requirements, allowing for more concurrent reviews where possible, and shortening timelines for decision making. Others counter that thorough reviews are necessary to properly assess quality.

Increasing transparency. Accreditation reviews and decisions are generally not made publicly available in detail due to confidentiality policies. Some advocacy groups are pushing for accreditors to be more transparent, such as publishing full site visit reports and decision rationales. Proponents argue this would provide more accountability and information for students and families. Privacy laws and competitive concerns for institutions have limited transparency reforms so far.

Reducing conflicts of interest. Accreditors rely heavily on peer review, but there are often ties between reviewers and the institutions under review through things like membership on academic boards or advisory roles. Reform efforts look to tighten conflict of interest policies, reduce financial ties between reviewers and reviewees, and bring more outside voices into the process. Others note the value of subject matter expertise during reviews.

Incorporating new quality indicators. Accreditors currently focus heavily on inputs like curriculum, faculty qualifications, facilities and finances. But there are calls to give more weight to outputs and outcomes like post-graduation salaries, debt levels, employment rates, and other metrics of student success. Tracking non-academic development is also an area ripe for reform. Determinng causality and addressing confounding variables is challenging with outcomes.

Encouraging innovation. The accreditation system is sometimes criticized for discouraging innovative practices that fall outside existing standards. Reforms explore ways to safely support experimental programs through parallel accreditation pathways, waiving certain standards for a set time period, or establishing regulatory sandboxes. But balancing quality assurance with flexibility remains a difficult issue.

Comparing accreditors. Despite operating in the same market, individual accreditors have different standards, priorities and levels of rigor. Ideas look at conducting reliability studies across accreditors to see how review outcomes compare given equivalent institutions. More transparency around accreditor performance could help alignment and provide information to guide institutional choices. Variation reflects the diversity of US higher ed.

Addressing for-profit impacts. For-profit colleges have faced more oversight and closures tied to questionable practices and student outcomes. Some argue this highlights a need for enhanced consumer protections within the tripartite accreditation-state-federal oversight system, along with stronger linkage between accreditation and Title IV funding. Others caution against an overly prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach at the risk of stifling innovation.

While the general principles and tripartite structure of US accreditation appear durable, improvements to processes aim to balance quality assurance with flexibility, innovation, and transparency. Meaningful reform faces pragmatic challenges around feasibility of implementation, cost, unintended consequences, and the diversity of stakeholders across American higher education. Most experts argue for cautious, evidence-based advancement that preserves core quality functions while creating a more responsive, accountable and student-centric system over the long term. The higher education landscape is constantly evolving, so ongoing assessment and adjustment of this self-regulatory process will likely remain ongoing topics of policy discussion.

WHAT ARE SOME COMMON CHALLENGES STUDENTS FACE DURING THE DATA GATHERING PROCESS IN CAPSTONE PROJECTS

Leave a reply

One of the biggest challenges is accessing the required data sources. Students have to identify relevant sources of data for their research questions and then find a way to collect the needed data from those sources. This can be difficult for several reasons. Some potential data sources may be unwilling or unable to share data due to privacy or confidentiality policies. Important data may also be behind paywalls or not publically available. Students need to reach out to potential data providers well in advance to request data and be prepared with Institutional Review Board approvals if needed. They should also have alternative data sources in mind in case Plan A doesn’t work out.

Related to data access is not having the right permissions or clearances to collect certain types of data. For instance, students may need IRB approval from their university to collect data involving human subjects. Or they may need special access permissions to obtain restricted government or commercial datasets. The permissions process can take time, so students need to initiate it as early as possible in the project planning stages. They also need to understand what types of data collection methods do or don’t require extra approvals.

Data quality can also pose issues that impact the analysis. Some common data quality problems students may encounter include missing or incomplete records, inconsistencies in data formats, errors or outliers in the values, and outdated or obsolete information. Students should review any data they obtain early on for these types of quality problems and be prepared to clean the data before use. They also need to understand that some types of poor quality data may be unsuitable for their research and require finding an alternative source.

Time constraints are another frequent challenge for capstone students when it comes to data gathering. Pulling together large or complex datasets from multiple sources can be very time intensive. Also, it may take longer than expected to gain required permissions or access to some datasets. Any delays mean students have less time to analyze the data, which puts them at risk of not finishing their project as planned. To help mitigate this risk, students need to finalize their data needs as early as possible and start the collection process well ahead of when they realistically need the data. Temporary data sources can also serve as backups in case primary sources are delayed.

Limited skills, experience or resources can hinder data collection efforts. Students aren’t always fully prepared to carry out specialized data collection methods that may be required for their project. For example, they may lack expertise in survey design, sampling approaches, data programming scripts, or use of specialized tools. Budget constraints may also prevent them from purchasing commercial data or hiring outside help for complex collections. To overcome these obstacles, students need to learn skills through supplemental coursework, online resources or mentorship well in advance of starting their project. They may also choose slightly less complex data collection approaches that better match their current abilities.

One of the most persistent challenges is collecting enough data to power robust statistical analyses and produce meaningful insights. Capstone projects often involve limited sample sizes due small budgets, restricted timeframes or difficulty recruiting participants. This poses the risk of datasets being too small to fully address research questions or generalized conclusions through inferential statistics. Students can mitigate this risk through pilot testing to better predict required sample sizes, focusing research on cases where sufficient data is readily available, using secondary data sources to increase data volume, and setting realistic expectations around study power based on projected dataset sizes.

While data gathering can present substantial obstacles for student capstone projects, thorough planning, skill development, contingency strategies and initiating the process early are effective ways to overcome many common challenges. With diligent preparation, alternative options and flexibility built into their plans, students can greatly improve their chances of acquiring quality datasets suitable for analysis within project timelines and constraints. The data collection phase requires significant front loading work from capstone students, but those who are well organized and proactively address potential barriers will be far likelier to succeed.